Feline Entanglement: Schrödinger’s Cat

Title: Feline Entanglement: Schrödinger’s Cat

Medium: India ink and watercolor on Arches paper. 2024.

The quantum question here is: to be and not to be, as well as the act of choosing to be or not to be. This question was triggered by an extraordinary event, a fantastic explosion — the Big Bang; not to forget the subsequent result, a spiritual Big Bang with the explosive emergence of the irrational and its negative ontology which is not without being positive. Anamnesis — the remembrance of knowledge that was never learned — is indeed the product of discovery in the truest sense of the word.

Anamnesis (from ancient Greek ἀνάμνησις, anámnêsis, “recollection,” “remembrance”) refers mainly to two distinct notions, depending on context:

• In medicine:
  Anamnesis is the systematic interview conducted by a healthcare professional (doctor, psychologist, nurse…) with a patient. Its purpose is to collect medical, surgical, family, and social history, as well as current symptoms, to guide diagnosis and treatment.
  Example: The doctor conducts an anamnesis to understand the source of the patient’s pain, asking about symptoms and medical history.

• In philosophy (notably in Plato):
  Anamnesis refers to the process of recollection, by which the soul, remembering eternal truths contemplated in a prior existence, regains knowledge. In this sense, knowledge is not discovered but rediscovered.
  Example: In Plato’s Meno, Socrates uses anamnesis to show that the young slave boy spontaneously recognizes geometric truths.

In summary:

• Philosophical anamnesis: Remembrance of innate knowledge according to Platonic theory.

• Medical anamnesis: Clinical interview to establish a patient’s history.

METALOGUE

A very, very short quantum story of “Schrödinger’s Cat” told to a child.

Father: Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics: a cat locked in a box with a quantum device is simultaneously dead and alive until an observer — let’s call them (O) — opens the box and fixes its state, at which point the cat is either dead or alive.

Child: But then, does that mean there are two cats?

Father: No, it’s still just one cat, but existing in a superposition of states (both dead and alive at once). This paradox illustrates the quantum idea that before observation, particles (or systems) exist in multiple states simultaneously. Opening the box (“observation”) forces reality to settle into one single state: alive or dead.

Child: And this superposition implies two states?

Father: Yes, exactly. The superposition involves two clearly distinct states:

• State A: The cat is alive.

• State B: The cat is dead.

As I said earlier, in quantum mechanics, before observation, the system exists in a superposition of the two states — not simply in one or the other, but in a state combining both possibilities simultaneously.

It is only at the moment of observation (opening the box) that the superposition disappears. We then say it “collapses,” fixing the cat definitively in one of the two states.

Child: So there is cat A on one side and cat B on the other, in other words c(A) and c(B), not “A or B.”

Father: Yes, exactly. Quantum superposition is expressed mathematically as a linear combination of two distinct states, usually written:

∣ψ⟩ = cA ∣A⟩ + cB ∣B⟩

where:

• ∣A⟩ is the “alive cat” state,

• ∣B⟩ is the “dead cat” state,

• cA and cB are complex coefficients (probability amplitudes), tied to the likelihood of observing each state.

When observation occurs, the wave function “collapses,” and the system adopts one definite state:

• either ∣A⟩, with probability ∣cA∣²,

• or ∣B⟩, with probability ∣cB∣².

Thus, before observation, the cat is genuinely in a state where both possibilities coexist (alive and dead). After observation, only one state remains.

Child: Well then, couldn’t we extrapolate that there are in fact two cats — one per state — and that the dead cat is not the living cat, and the living cat is not the dead cat?

Father: Your question touches directly on the heart of quantum interpretation.

In the original experiment, it is one cat in a superposition of states. But your extrapolation corresponds to another possible interpretation: Everett’s “Many-Worlds Interpretation.”

In this view, when the system is in superposition [cA ∣A⟩ + cB ∣B⟩], reality “branches” into two distinct paths. There truly are two parallel realities: one where the cat is alive, and one where the cat is dead. These two “cats” no longer interact; each evolves within its own parallel universe.

So yes, one can say there are two distinct cats — but this corresponds to a specific interpretation (Many-Worlds), not the more traditional Copenhagen interpretation, where only one cat exists and observation fixes its state.

Child: So, if I understand correctly, to summarize:

• Copenhagen interpretation: One cat in two simultaneous states, but in a single world.

• Everett’s Many-Worlds interpretation: Two separate cats in two distinct realities (worlds).

And which, according to you, makes more sense?

Father: That’s going to be a long answer. Well, if I compare both interpretations with their pros and cons:

Copenhagen (one cat, superposition):

• Advantages: Matches our immediate intuition (one world observed). Simple, practical, useful for experimental predictions.

• Disadvantages: Introduces major conceptual ambiguity (what exactly is an “observation”?). Does not clearly resolve what triggers the collapse of the wave function.

Everett’s Many-Worlds (parallel universes):

• Advantages: Eliminates the collapse problem entirely — all states exist simultaneously. Mathematically coherent, no need for artificial adjustment.

• Disadvantages: Difficult to accept intuitively (infinite parallel universes). Not experimentally testable (at least not yet).

My personal synthesis: Logically and mathematically, Many-Worlds is attractive, since it avoids ambiguity about “observation.” For human intuition and practical use, Copenhagen is simpler, though it leaves issues unresolved.

So, in terms of “making sense”:

• If you prefer absolute theoretical consistency and mathematical elegance → Everett’s Many-Worlds.

• If you prefer a simpler, more intuitive framework → Copenhagen.

Personally, my preference is definitely Everett. Conceptually, it feels more solid, avoids the collapse problem, and aligns better with the foundations of quantum theory. Still, this preference remains philosophical rather than scientific until decisive experimental proof emerges.

Child: My preference goes to the Many-Worlds version. It makes more sense for the cats.

Father: Yes, I agree. Your preference for Everett’s interpretation is legitimate, understandable, and logical. (1) It removes the ambiguity of the “observer’s role.” (2) It strictly respects quantum mathematics without a mysterious collapse mechanism. (3) It opens a fascinating vision of reality as a vast multiverse constantly branching.

Child: In any case, I prefer it to Copenhagen, even if it challenges traditional intuition. It gives a more elegant, coherent, and fascinating vision of reality: every choice, every possibility, every quantum state would exist somewhere, fully realized. That’s amazing.

Father: It is also a particularly stimulating vision philosophically, existentially, and artistically — a rich source of inspiration for exploring the psychological, symbolic, or metaphysical aspects of reality.

Your choice, and ultimately mine as well, for Everett’s interpretation transports us into an open universe of endless possibilities — one that aligns well with your ongoing quest for reflection and creative expression.